Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 February 20

= February 20 =

star size limits
is there a limit for stars to grow before nuclear reaction is not enough to prevent them from collapse do to gravity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.96.146 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. See Star and Eddington luminosity. I believe what the limit actually is depends on the metallicity of the star (which depends, among other things, on how old the universe was when the star was created). --Tango (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For interest, last week's New Scientist magazine (dated 13 Feb 2010) had a cover-featured article examining exactly this topic. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are croc's more closely related to birds than lizards/snakes?
Is this because crocodiles and birds share a more recent common ancestor than the croc's and lizard/snakes do? Any help would be appreciated, thank you!!Chrisbystereo (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. See the nice tree at Archosaur. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a very common way of defining how closely related certain species are. That doesn't necessarily mean they have more genes in common, or more physical characteristics, etc.. The speed of evolution can vary widely, so one branch may have changed far more than another. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it does mean that they have more genes in common (or rather greater similarity between homologous genes) -- that's the data that is used to work out the evolutionary history. Looie496 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't work out the evolutionary history in big jumps, though. On a small scale, what you say is correct, but when you are talking about branches that separated hundreds of millions of years ago it isn't so simple. Each species will have a lot of genes in common with other species that are very closely related to them, but when you are looking at distant relatives it is difficult to say. Consider this example. Species X has genes AAAAA and splits into species Y and Z with genes AAAAB and AAAAC. Species Y then splits into Y1 and Y2 with genes BAAAB and CAAAB. Y1 then stays as it is and Y2 evolves into Y2' with genes CBBBB. Y2' and Y1 are quite closely related (their common ancestor is Y), but only share 2/5 genes. Y1 and Z are more distant relatives (their common ancestor is X) but share 3/5 genes. --Tango (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The last common ancestor of crocodiles and birds is more recent (in time) than the last common ancestor of crocodiles and lizards & snakes. That makes them more closely related in exactly the same way that brothers and sisters are more closely related than cousins.  Birds are descended from dinosaurs - and dinosaurs and crocodiles are closely related. SteveBaker (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Among other similarities, crocodilians have four-chambered hearts.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 23:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It has also recently been discovered that the American Alligator has "unidirectional lungs," a trait previously only known in birds. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Decaying Copernicium
First off, chemistry is far from being my strongest subject. That said, when radioactive elements decay, they become other elements, yeah? So what does Copernicium become? If I'm totally off, please explain why in fairly simple terms. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 15:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the table at the top-right of each element page, it lists the stable isotopes, and for radioactive elements, has a "DP"="Decay product". So in this case, the most stable ones seem to become various isotopes of Darmstadtium (Ds). As for decay in general, there are a bunch of different ways radioactive elements can decay, some of which can modify its proton count (which makes it a different element and not just a different isotope)—see Radioactivity. Anytime Z changes, you have a different element. The odd cases where Z goes up are from where other internal parts of atoms are converted into protons. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 132Sn is mentioned in the article text as well. (I would consider this a physics question, not chemistry) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Though that's in the case of fission, not decay. (Which we can guess, immediately, by the fact that a fission product is going to be roughly 50% of the original, whereas a decay product is maybe 1 or 2 protons/neutrons different.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Spontaneous fission is a mode of nuclear decay. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Erupting vanilla extract
While making waffles just now, I put the dry ingredients into one bowl and started mixing the wet in another. In the wet bowl, I put in milk and the eggs. Then when I put the vanilla extract in, it was roiling almost as if boiling. (so the combo was eggs, milk, van. extract) What causes this? Dismas |(talk) 15:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was bubbling when you poured it on to flour, I would suggest that percolation has the answers. Your flour and dry ingredients have pore spaces between the grains that are filled with air.  As the fluid falls into those pore spaces, the air needs to bubble its way out.  But it sounds like you've only mixed wet ingredients.  Vanilla extract should really be pretty inert - it's mostly alcohol and water, with a trace amount of vanilla oil - but you could conceivably be seeing an acid-base reaction.  I'm guessing your mixture is pretty viscous - so any trapped air (perhaps from whisking or mixing) might have formed bubbles that were slowly buoyantly rising to the surface.  If the time constant for that buoyant rise is fairly slow, you might see air bubbling to the surface long after you stop mixing.  Nimur (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also possible that the vanilla extract is somehow acting as a surfactant and allowing the liquid to get more tightly into the pores of the flour, driving the air out. SteveBaker (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming that you only say liquid moving, with no visible gas bubbles and no liquid being forced higher than the normal surface of the liquid, the likely cause is mixing and surface tension effects. Vanilla extract usually contains a high proportion of alcohol, which has a lighter density than water, and certainly has a lighter density from the egg-milk mixture. When put together, they don't mix immediately, due to the density difference. As they slowly dissolve with each other, this sets up a number of concentration gradients, which can cause physical forces on the liquid. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, water and water-alcohol mixtures have much different surface tensions. You can see this if you pour a small amount of alcohol into a very shallow layer of water. The water "tenses up" into a ball, and you get a "shimmery" movement at the water-alcohol interface as the two adjust to the surface tension differences. -- 174.21.247.23 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but the bowl only had the wet ingredients in it. Dismas |(talk) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got a bowl with milk and eggs--are they beaten together or just poured in? Then you added vanilla extract. Dropped hard in one place (so that gravity makes it plunge towards the bottom) or gently sprinkled across the surface? When you say "roiling almost as if boiling", do you mean bubbling or just visible liquid mixing up-and-down? Alcohol is lighter than water, so if you drop alcohol to the bottom it will try to rise up again. DMacks (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just poured in. Dropped in one place.  No bubbling, just a sort of eruption that didn't raise the surface of the liquid at that spot.  It was fairly prolonged, on the order of 10-15 seconds.  (on a side note, I just looked up 'roil' and apparently it's not a word though I've heard it used before to mean a rolling boil)  After reading all the responses thus far, I'm betting that it's a surface tension thing.  I wasn't aware that VE was mostly alcohol.
 * And on another side note, I've known a few alcoholics in my lifetime and I'm aware that they don't keep mouthwashes with alcohol in their houses. Now I'm wondering if I would find VE in their cabinets.  Dismas |(talk) 13:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You would have to be pretty desperate to want to drink undiluted Vanilla extract - it's amazingly strong stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard (from a not terribly reliable source) that sailors in the navy would drink some sort of alcohol based extract (was it almond extract?) to get around prohibitions on alcoholic beverages. If true, I wonder what the suppliers thought about the amount of almond extract being ordered.  Buddy431 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I heard that story too - but I thought they were distilling the alcohol out of the extract rather than drinking it 'as-is'. SteveBaker (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cooper Sulfate use
What are the affects on wildlife such as ducks and geese if cooper sulfate is used in a small neighborhood pond for algae control? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.172.66 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Copper sulphate can be toxic to fish, aquatic plants and algae - which would obviously eliminate a food source for the ducks and geese - but a lot depends on the dosage. At low concentrations, it's used to treat swimming pools (so it's obviously not toxic to humans at those levels) but out article lists a large number of alarming toxic effects on humans (so it's obviously nasty stuff in higher concentrations).  It's also used to treat skin diseases in goldfish - so even the known toxicity to fish can only occur at higher dosages.  Sadly, our article doesn't discuss toxicity to birds.  I strongly suggest that you discuss the dosage levels used in the pond with whoever is doing the treatment - and try to establish that it's being used in reasonable amounts.  Follow the instructions on the packaging very carefully - with particular reference to using only the minimum amount needed to treat the algae.  This can be tricky without knowing the volume of water in the pond - which can be really tough to estimate.  SteveBaker (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

focal length of lens
does focal length of a lens depends on the refractive index of its surroundings? like if we put a lens in water, will its focal length change? i think f should remain constant becoz by 'lens maker formula' :- 1/f = (n-1)(1/R1 + 1/R2) it seems that focal length depends only on refractive index of the material by which lens is formed and radius of curvature of both faces. but if we put a convex lens in say a denser medium(optically denser than the lens) it will become a diverging lens. will not it? so as we put it in another medium which is rarer than the first medium, divergence of light shall decrease. by this we can conclude that in air if the focal length of convex lens is x then in water f will be y such that y > x. this is my dilemma.thanx§§§§ --Myownid420 (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, the refractive index should be measured relative to the medium in which the lens is immersed. However, because air and vacuum have almost the same refractive index (1.0000 for vacuum, 1.0003 for air at standard temp & pressure), it is rare for people to state which medium they are measuring it in.  So, if you read that the glass that some lens is made of has a refractive index of 1.5 - then it really doesn't matter whether that's in air or in vacuum.  If you put that same lens into water, then you should really use the refractive index of the glass relative to that of water - but nobody lists those kinds of numbers.  Hence, you have to divide the refractive index of the glass in air by the refractive index of water in air to get the refractive index of glass in water.  That does indeed mean that the focal length of the lens will be different in air than in water. SteveBaker (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To summarize, the n in that formula is always $$n_\text{lens}/n_\text{environment}$$; see Snell's law, which contains only that ratio and neither index separately. We often neglect the denominator because it's so close to 1 for air and vacuum.  --Tardis (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ideas for activity
I'm a nurse working in the area of Injury Prevention. We're going to set up an Injury Prevention booth at a college health event which will be 2 hours long. The booth will be one of many others that deal with a health topic. I set up a bulletin board with brief info on preventing injuries. Now I am looking for some ideas on the types of interactive activities around the topic of Injury Prevention that might be suitable for college students who stop by at my booth. I've currently thought of having students answer 5~10 True or False questions, but I'm open to any other ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you get hold of some fake injuries like those used in TV and film that you can stick on people? That might give people a better idea of the consequences of their carelessness. It would also be fun, which always helps at that kind of event. --Tango (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You could make a big, hollow foam polystyrene cube - dress it up to make it look like something really heavy and put fake "Warning: Really Heavy" stickers on it - then ask people to demonstrate how they'd pick it up off the floor. You'd be able to instantly show them the postural mistakes they (almost inevitably) make while doing that - and explain how to avoid the resulting back injuries by doing it right. SteveBaker (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mistaking heavy objects for light ones and vice versa is actually known to be a source of injuries. Ask any luggage handler. Make sure they won't have reason to claim you!190.98.50.179 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe a picture or a staging of a common workplace situation having the students point out where the risks for injuries are. (a trailing cable, floor that will be slippery when walking with wet shoes e.t.c) Just looking at a website about slips and falls: there's plenty of situations that a college student may meet in his/her part-time job. EverGreg (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be a lot of fun - take over a room someplace - see just how crazy dangerous you can make it - take photos and challenge people to count the number of preventable injury sources there are! Sit around with some buddies and brainstorm all of the ways you can make it dangerous.  Just try not to get injured while doing it because that would be something that would get you a fast-track to the Darwin Awards. SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK, drawings of such a room are often used in Office Safety lectures mandatory in many companies (possibly at the behest of the Health and Safety Executive). Here's one example, found from 20 seconds of googling, that might provide inspiration. (NB: those ringed in red on this version are not the only ones.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bendroflumethiazide mechanism of action
Hi I understand that it is thought that some of the anti-hypertensive effects of Bendroflumethiazide may attributed to its inhibition of the enzyme carbonic anhydrase. (See the wiki article called thiazide) I'm not sure how the inhibiton of carbonic anhydrase would have an anti-hypertensive effect. How would this work? The article on carbonic anhydrases doesn't offer any suggestions. Thanks to anyone who can offer some insight. RichYPE (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it affects bicarbonate levels in the blood and how well CO2 will dissolve in it. This in turn impacts blood acidity and H+ concentration. "Angiotensin II stimulates Na+/H+ exchangers located on the apical membranes (faces the tubular lumen) of cells in the proximal tubule and thick ascending limb of the loop of Henle in addition to Na+ channels in the collecting ducts. This will ultimately lead to increased sodium reabsorption" (Renin-angiotensin system). This is my guess ... John Riemann Soong (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)